I went with the Sony, because my EQ app reported a flatter response than the Shure (needed less tweaking to get to the sound I was after).
There were a couple of devs who already had Klipsch or Beats sets... I snuck a listen to the Beats set late one evening, and was really struck by how poorly it sounded in comparison. (In fairness, it may have been a first-gen Solo, which has garnered brickbats for sound quality anyway.)
Sound from headphones is no longer wizard technology. You can get good and even great sound from many brands.
The more wireless / pre-cache abilities, better bass drivers, in an in ear design would be impressive.
No matter what you do with headphones however, they don't image properly due to their placement directly on your ears. This is a fact that is lost on the "headphone generation".
I liked that they were foldable as I use a smaller case for my MBP these days, but does that affect the overall design when you're wearing it? Is it better to have a pair designed more for wearing or for storage?
The foldable ones don't affect how they feel, they swivel the parts near the speakers so the band up top has the same pressure as if it was fixed. There's more chance of them breaking but that will depend on the headphone and how carefully they are folded. It looks like the Beats hinge fits into a plastic mount:
Sennheiser attaches the hinges to the metal band that goes through the headband:
No matter what you do with headphones however, they don't image properly due to their placement directly on your ears. This is a fact that is lost on the "headphone generation".
Can you explain what you mean? You ear can only react to the sound that makes it down the ear canal. What difference can it make where the sound waves started outside the ear?
Sound from headphones is no longer wizard technology. You can get good and even great sound from many brands.
The more wireless / pre-cache abilities, better bass drivers, in an in ear design would be impressive.
No matter what you do with headphones however, they don't image properly due to their placement directly on your ears. This is a fact that is lost on the "headphone generation".
Nice observation.
I like listening to music through headphones, but there is a certain feeling of the music being trapped and not quite right. There's something about music from speakers that envelopes the ears well, because the sound cascades off so many surfaces. I'm no sound engineer, but I guess that with headphones, the sound doesn't get the chance to approach the eardrum from as many angles; also, the sound will reflect from the ear back to the headphone, whilst with speakers, the music bounces from a long way and reflects back a long way.
Lorin Schultz would probably provide a good explanation.
I like listening to music through headphones, but there is a certain feeling of the music being trapped and not quite right. There's something about music from speakers that envelopes the ears well, because the sound cascades off so many surfaces.
That happens with closed-back headphones. Open-back headphones sound more natural but it means other people hear what you're listening to. At home, open-back is best (unless you are trying to block out family noise). Wearing headphones in public, you would want closed-back but in-ear buds would probably sound more natural. Buds are small though so they don't produce as powerful a sound without being specially designed:
On-ear doesn't work very well for sports, not the larger ones anyway. Closed-back on-ear works well for walking around or jogging - it helps to be able to hear some outside noise to avoid being run over by a car. Open-back on-ear works well indoors as you get larger drivers and natural sound.
If they could get closed-back to sound roughly the same as open-back somehow, that would be a good step forward. Perhaps sample ambient noise or the surrounding space and adjust the audio to suit. They do active noise cancellation but nobody really mixes ambient noise with sound on closed-back phones to make the sound more natural.
Do people realize that there is an increased risk of getting a bald spot on the top of the head due to wearing these large headphones? At various ages I noticed I'd get either thinning or no hair in the area where the wide band on the top of the head touched. I try to avoid that type of headphones now.
Nice try but if you are loosing your hair it isn't the fault of the headphones. Can you say genetics.
Comments
When my workplace moved to an open-pod layout for developers/testers, they compensated by giving us our choice of two headsets:
I went with the Sony, because my EQ app reported a flatter response than the Shure (needed less tweaking to get to the sound I was after).
There were a couple of devs who already had Klipsch or Beats sets... I snuck a listen to the Beats set late one evening, and was really struck by how poorly it sounded in comparison. (In fairness, it may have been a first-gen Solo, which has garnered brickbats for sound quality anyway.)
The more wireless / pre-cache abilities, better bass drivers, in an in ear design would be impressive.
No matter what you do with headphones however, they don't image properly due to their placement directly on your ears. This is a fact that is lost on the "headphone generation".
Then don't buy 'em.
The foldable ones don't affect how they feel, they swivel the parts near the speakers so the band up top has the same pressure as if it was fixed. There's more chance of them breaking but that will depend on the headphone and how carefully they are folded. It looks like the Beats hinge fits into a plastic mount:
Sennheiser attaches the hinges to the metal band that goes through the headband:
The newer Beats models might have fixed that.
No matter what you do with headphones however, they don't image properly due to their placement directly on your ears. This is a fact that is lost on the "headphone generation".
Can you explain what you mean? You ear can only react to the sound that makes it down the ear canal. What difference can it make where the sound waves started outside the ear?
Nice observation.
I like listening to music through headphones, but there is a certain feeling of the music being trapped and not quite right. There's something about music from speakers that envelopes the ears well, because the sound cascades off so many surfaces. I'm no sound engineer, but I guess that with headphones, the sound doesn't get the chance to approach the eardrum from as many angles; also, the sound will reflect from the ear back to the headphone, whilst with speakers, the music bounces from a long way and reflects back a long way.
Lorin Schultz would probably provide a good explanation.
That happens with closed-back headphones. Open-back headphones sound more natural but it means other people hear what you're listening to. At home, open-back is best (unless you are trying to block out family noise). Wearing headphones in public, you would want closed-back but in-ear buds would probably sound more natural. Buds are small though so they don't produce as powerful a sound without being specially designed:
http://gizmodo.com/5371253/giz-explains-why-you-cant-get-decent-earphones-for-less-than-100
I don't think there's an ideal headphone style for every scenario. Sony made a music player integrated with earbuds that's waterproof:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Walkman-NWZW273S-Waterproof-Swimming/dp/B00I05EFO4
On-ear doesn't work very well for sports, not the larger ones anyway. Closed-back on-ear works well for walking around or jogging - it helps to be able to hear some outside noise to avoid being run over by a car. Open-back on-ear works well indoors as you get larger drivers and natural sound.
If they could get closed-back to sound roughly the same as open-back somehow, that would be a good step forward. Perhaps sample ambient noise or the surrounding space and adjust the audio to suit. They do active noise cancellation but nobody really mixes ambient noise with sound on closed-back phones to make the sound more natural.
Nice try but if you are loosing your hair it isn't the fault of the headphones. Can you say genetics.
Are you sure you want to go with "loosing"? Sounds a bit loosey-goosey.